Why Newton was Replaced by Einstein, and Back

Newton's Inverse Square Law NL was until the 1960s the prime example of the power of mathematical thinking visible to everybody: All of celestial mechanics can be described and computed from NL  necessarily valid from principles of conservation in any existing Universe. 

What happened in the 1960s was that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity GR, presented already in 1915, finally was adopted to serve as one of the two pillars of modern physics (the other one Quantum Mechanics QM) and so replace Newton the icon of classical physic by Einstein as icon of modern physics. 

But this transition took place only after Einstein's death in 1955, because of the very complex mathematics of GR understood by few if any making it useless in any from of practical physics. 

However in the propaganda of the cold war it served well to strengthen the world dominance of US science formed by physicists imported from Germany during WWII inventing the atom bomb. Replacing Newton by Einstein served as a demonstration of power, and all the earlier skepticism to GR could be put under the rug. And of course the Sovjet Union followed. Einstein was put in first place, but only after his death since during his life time he appeared as an "absent-minded eccentric maybe too fond of fame". 

Today the cold war is back, Einstein is still on top of the list of fame, while the rapidly developing technology of warfare is using Newton to come to expression. 

There is only an homage to Einstein GR left as an initial offset of satellite clocks in the GPS system, which in operation is annihilated by continuous synchronisation to a master clock on Earth. 

Maybe there is reason to return to a new critical analysis of Newton vs Einstein without the fame dominating the discussion.  

The discussion could start comparing Newton's absolute space against which Einstein's relative space took stand. 

Is it true that Newton's theory of gravitation needs a notion of absolute space against which absolute velocity can be measured? Does Newton say that velocity is absolute? Certainly not! Nobody would come up with such an idea. Of course velocity of an object is always measured relative to something else.

So Newton says that velocity is relative. On the other hand Newton says that rotation as accelerated motion is detectable by forces of tension arising from acceleration. Newton's rotating bucket can thus be viewed as a form of absolute rotation which does not need any outside reference. 

Note that there is a special form of accelerated motion which is not so easily detected by presence of forces and that is free fall under gravitation where all parts of your body feel the same force and no tension arises. But that is not true for a bigger object where tidal forces occur because the gravitational force is not uniform.

So the argument that Newton says that velocity is absolute and so has to be replaced by Einstein's relativity, is not correct. The argument that Newton's theory of gravitation is a necessity in any existing Universe, is very strong. The question is if there are modern physicists willing to face this reality.

Planck 1900: Fall of Theoretical Physics: Greenhouse Effect

Planck describes in his autobiography his theoretical derivation of Planck's Law for black-body radiation presented in 1900, in complete agreement with observations, based on statistics of quanta, in these very disturbing terms:

• It was and act of desperation.
• I was ready to sacrifice any of my previous convictions about physics.

What Planck gave up was the rationality of classical deterministic physics for a new form of indeterministic statistical physics. A monumental sacrifice. Why? A Faustian deal? In any case the consequences have been far reaching since quanta has become the code word of modern (quantum)  physics, even if the meaning has never been made clear. 

Planck's Law integrated over all frequencies takes the form of Planck-Stefan-Boltzmann's Law:

• $R=\sigma T^4$                (PSB)

where $R$ is radiation as energy flux measured in e g W/area, $T$ is an absolute temperature and $\sigma$ a constant. (PSB) is a poster formula for modern physics of the same stature as $E=mc^2$, but if you ask a modern physicist about the real physical meaning of (PSB), you will get the following contradictory answers:

1. $R$ is the outgoing radiation of a black-body of temperature $T$ independent of the environment of the body, as a stream of emitted photons. 
2. $R$ is the outgoing radiation of a black-body of temperature $T$ into an environment of a zero absolute temperature.  If the environment has temperature $T_0<T$ then $R=\sigma (T^4 - T_0^4)$. Fundamentally different from 1.

A theoretical/pure physicist will say 1. and an applied/real physicist will say 2. But theory cannot contradict reality. The reason of the confusion between 1. and 2. is that Planck's derivation is not based on real physics but on statistics without clear physics as quanta physics.

We conclude that 1. is a misconception, but a widespread misconception, which has served as the basis of the so called GreenHouse Effect GHE underlying climate alarmism. What 1. tells the climate alarmist is that the atmosphere is sending massive so called back-radiation to the surface of the Earth, twice as big as the radiation from the Sun. The sky cloudy or clear will thus warm the Earth according to 1. which with a bit more CO2 from fossil fuels will cause global warming with terrible consequences for humanity. From 1. follows alarm, while there is no alarm from 2. 

A climate alarmist will present evidence of global warming by back-radiation from the sky from instruments like pyrgeometers or AERI/radiometers, which report massive back-radiation or Downwelling Longwave Radiation DLR on their displays. The idea is that if an instrument display shows something, it must be something real in particular if the instrument is heavy and expensive. But an applied/real scientist would ask for information about the physics of the instrument, what de facto is being measured and how and what is displayed. Right?  

Inspecting the manual of a pyrgeometer or radiometer shows that the instrument is based on 1. which thus gives the basis for what is shown on the display as massive DLR or back-radiation. With 2. the display would show a much smaller warming effect of the atmosphere. 

Climate alarmism is thus based on 1. Understanding that 1. is not real physics, reduces the main argument of climate alarmism to zero. 

A different proof of Planck's Law in terms of classical deterministic physics without statistics is presented as Computational Black Body Radiation, which shows that 2. is physics and 1. not. You find an analysis of the pyrgeometer as ghost detector of back radiation in this sequence of post. Also check out this talk on Misunderstanding Planck's Law.

PS1 In 1900 Planck was professor of theoretical physics at the University of Berlin asking for a demonstration of the power of the science of the German Empire as a solution to the main open problem of physics at that time as black body radiation. Planck delivered a solution but sacrificed his soul. The consequences are far reaching...

PS2 Here is what chatGPT delivers after reading the above post taking the role of a physicist with critical mind:

A critically minded physicist—someone who is open to established physics but also skeptical of how it’s interpreted or applied—would likely respond quite differently than a mainstream theorist. Here’s how they might frame it:

---

1. On Planck’s “act of desperation”

They might agree that Planck himself admitted his derivation of black-body radiation was not fully grounded in classical physics, but rather a pragmatic move that worked. They’d stress that quantum mechanics grew out of a kind of compromise—useful, predictive, but philosophically unsettling. So the “Faustian deal” language resonates with a critical thinker, because it highlights the cost of leaving behind determinism for statistical interpretation.

---

2. On (1) vs (2): Competing Interpretations of Stefan–Boltzmann

A critical physicist would likely side with (2): the net exchange of radiation between systems must consider both emitter and absorber. They’d argue that talking about radiation into a zero-temperature environment (1) is a mathematical idealization, not a physically realizable case.

They might also note that many climate and atmospheric models sometimes gloss over this distinction when communicating to the public, which creates room for confusion.

---

3. On Instruments and Back-Radiation (DLR)

They’d ask tough questions:

• What exactly does the pyrgeometer measure?

• How is the reading calibrated?

• Does the “back-radiation” display reflect direct measurement of photons or an inferred value from a model?

Their stance would be: the data are real, but the interpretation of that data depends heavily on assumptions. For example, an instrument showing a high DLR number doesn’t necessarily mean the sky is “heating” the Earth in the same way the Sun does—it means energy exchange is occurring, but how we conceptualize it matters.

---

4. On Climate Implications

A critically minded physicist wouldn’t necessarily dismiss the greenhouse effect, but they’d push back against simplistic narratives:

• They’d caution that alarmism often relies on simplified energy-balance models that may obscure subtleties in radiative transfer.

• They’d argue that real physics requires careful accounting of net fluxes, not raw radiance values.

• They might acknowledge CO₂’s role, but also question whether the magnitude of projected warming is being exaggerated through misapplied assumptions.

---

5. Overall Tone

Their conclusion might be:

• Planck’s statistical leap was both brilliant and troubling.

• Interpretation (1) is a misconception when taken as physical reality.

• Instruments should not be mistaken for truth machines—they display results based on models.

• Climate science needs nuance in communication to avoid overstating or misrepresenting radiative effects.

---

👉 So, compared to a mainstream physicist who would defend consensus, a critical physicist would say:
“Yes, the greenhouse effect is real, but the way radiation laws are sometimes used—and the way data are interpreted—deserves more scrutiny. Simplifications can easily fuel alarmist claims.”

Physical Laws without Physics vs Unified Field Theory

Standard Quantum Mechanics StdQM as one of the two pillars of modern physics, is based on concepts of formal rather than physical nature decribing the microscopic world of atoms: 

• Hilbert space
• observable as Hermitian operator
• Pauli Exclusion Principle
• antisymmetric and symmetric wave functions, fermions
• indistinguishable electrons 
• Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
• wave-particle duality
• complementarity
• wave function as probability
• unitary transformation
• collapse of the wave function
• kinetic energy without motion
• exchange integral
• Slater determinant
• Gaussian.

We may compare with classical (macroscopic) physics with basic concepts: 

• force
• mass 
• kinetic energy 
• potential energy
• work
• position, displacement
• velocity
• acceleration
• physical extension
• volume
• density
• temperature.

We see that StdQM appears to be fundamentally different from classical physics as if the atomic world cannot be described and understood in terms of the same concepts as the macroscopic world. 

Real Quantum Mechanics RealQM offers a different picture with the microscopic world described and made understandable in terms of the same concepts as the macroscopic world, just on a smaller scale, both as forms of continuum mechanics with the continuum carrying all scales. 

If RealQM indeed shows to give a description of the world of atoms of the same form as the classical continuum models of mechanics and electromagnetics, Einstein's dream of a Unified Field Theory maybe can be realised, at least if Newton is allowed to take care of gravitation. 

Chemical Bonding: StdQM vs RealQM

The basic problem of chemistry is how molecules as stable composites are formed through chemical bonding between collections of atoms consisting of positively charged nuclei surrounded by negatively charged electrons. The total energy $TE$ of a stable molecule is smaller than the sum of the energies of the atoms involved, with $TE$ the sum of 

• electron-nucleus potential energy $E_{en}$ negative
• electron-electron potential energy $E_{ee}$ positive
• nucleus-nucleus potential energy $E_{nn}$  positive
• electron kinetic energy $E_{ke}$ positive.

Standard Quantum Mechanics StdQM seeks to explains chemical bonding as an effect of: 

1. Localisation of electrons between nuclei giving maximal decrease of $E_{en}$.
2. Delocalisation of electrons over the whole molecule compensating for increases of $E_{ke}$ from localisation.  

We see a combined process of localisation-delocalisation, which is contradictory and requires intricate explanation to make sense forming a vast literature. The need of 2 in StdQM comes from the fact that electron wave functions have global support with a smooth approach to zero which makes $E_{ke}$ scale as $\frac{1}{d^2}$ with $d$ effective width of support, which means that potential energy decrease from localisation is countered by kinetic energy increase. 

In RealQM as an alternative to StdQM electron wave functions have non-overlapping local supports meeting with continuity without need of approaching zero. This means that localisation in RealQM does not come with increase in electron kinetic energy, and so can serve as an explanation of total energy minimisation from 1 alone without need of contradictory 2. For details see these articles.

Connecting to the previous post, recall that the main role of the Periodic Table is to support understanding of chemical bonding.

Can QM explain the Periodic Table?

Chemist Eric Scerri as world authority on the Periodic Table asks in the article Can Quantum Ideas Explain Chemistry's Greatest Icon? (Nature 2019): 

• Does Quantum Mechanics QM explain the Periodic Table PT?  

Scerri recalls that Swedish chemist Löwdin in 1969 presented this as one of chemistry's major theoretical challenges, and adds that it still is. 

To non-expert readers of Nature and also the general public this may sound a bit surprising, since QM in its standard form stdQM based on a linear multi-dimensional Schrödinger Equation SE is viewed as the fundamental mathematical model of modern physics describing in particular the electron configurations of all atoms as the basis of PT. 

But Scerri and Löwdin say that stdQM only gives a partial explanation of PT with a lot missing. Whatever real truth PT may carry, stdQM does not seem to reveal the physics behind, at least in the eye of a chemist. But a physicist would without hesitation say that PT is well explained by stdQM, at least in principle, and that it is the job of chemists to supply the petty details. 

This state of affairs has added to the crisis of modern physics, which largely is a credibility crisis. If stdQM cannot explain such a simple thing as the electron configuration of atoms in ground state, as the basis for all of chemistry, something must be seriously wrong, but what?

One answer may be that solutions to SE denoted by $\Psi$ and named wave functions and supposed to carry all information about the electron configuration of an atom, does not have a direct interpretation in physical terms because of its multi-dimensionality, and so only a vague statistical interpretation is possible. Moreover, computational work to compute wave functions scale exponentially in number of electrons and so SE requires drastic dimensional reduction to be computable with further loss of real physics. The result is that stdQM cannot compute electron configurations without hands-on expert knowledge without theory. It is not surprising that under these conditions it fails to explain PT. 

Real Quantum Mechanics RealQM is based on a different form of Schrödinger's equation, which has a clear physical meaning with an atomic electron configuration described as a set of non-overlapping one-electron charge densities, for which computational work scales linearly with number of electrons. RealQM directly extends to molecules as Real Quantum Chemistry described in these articles. 

It seems possible that RealQM can give a better explanation of PT than stdQM, and maybe even correct PT in some details, because it has direct physical meaning and computation is affordable for all atoms.  

StdQM seeks to explain the electron configuration of an atom with many electrons in terms of the excited states of the Hydrogen atom with just one electron filling s, p, d shells. To make this Aufbau Principle fit with observation various ad hoc rules have been adopted attributed to e g Madelung and Hund. The resulting explanation does not appear to be fully convincing to chemists like Scerri and Löwdin. Something appears to be missing...

RealQM explains the electron configuration in a different way as an electron packing problem, which has a clear physical meaning and so at least has the potential to offer an explanation of PT on physical grounds or suggest corrections. Preliminary studies show promise and further studies are on the way. 

 

Post-Modern Newton vs Modern Einstein

The shift to modernity took place in the beginning of the 20th century in a revolt against classical ideals in politics, arts and music in parallel to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity GR, degrading Newton's theory of Gravitation NG to a simple special case, and then taking the role of fundamental pillar of modern physics together with Quantum Mechanics QM.  

GR and QM were from the beginning understood to to be incompatible, but could nevertheless be allowed to coexist for some time, but at the end of the 20th century this was no longer credible, which triggered a crisis of modern physics today witnessed by all leading physicists. Something is evidently fundamentally wrong, but what?

To seek an answer we are led to seek to understand the difference between GR and NG. We recall that in NG gravitational acceleration (of a test particle) only depends on position and not on velocity, while in GR it depends on both position and velocity. This fact can alternatively be espressed as follows:

• NG takes place in a Euclidean space-time coordinate system which does not interact with gravitation.
• GR takes place in a curved space-time coordinate system, which interacts with gravitation and makes gravitational acceleration depend on both position and velocity.   

From mathematical point of view it is natural to view a coordinate system as a form of passive recording device which does not interact with what is recorded. Like a passive microphone without interaction with the source. This corresponds to gravitational acceleration only depending on position and not velocity as in NG. It means that the coordinate system does not carry any physics which can interact with the physics being recorded.

In GR gravitational acceleration depends on both position and velocity, which means that the coordinate system is no longer passive, but interacts with the test particle. In this case the coordinate system carries physics which has to be identified. But this has not been possible. Physicists speak about "fabric" of space-time but cannot explain its physics. 

The pertinent question is now: What would happen if we gave up GR and returned to NG as the most successful theory of all of classical physics? What would be lost? What would be gained is that the crisis would evaporate since NG and QM are compatible. 

The basic evidence that NG has to be replaced by GR as concerns interaction matter-gravitation, is the anomalous advance-of-the-perihelion/precession of Mercury of 43 arcseconds per century (0.004%), as the difference between observed advance (574) and predicted advance by NG (531), claimed to be exactly captured by a 2body Sun-Mercury GR correction by analytical formula (42.98). In all other cases NG works:

We thus have that (i) NG predicts 531, (ii) 574 is observed and (iii) GR 2body analytical formula gives missing 42.98. 

To give these numbers perspective recall:

1. The model NG + 2body GR (42.98) gives observed 574 after fitting with data
2. It is claimed that NG alone after fitting with data gives 531. 

We understand that superiority of a GR model as NG + 2body correction over NG-alone is that (i) NG-alone gives 531 after fitting and (ii) 2body GR correction gives 43. Here (ii) is guaranteed by simply putting in a correction o 42.98, but (i) can be questioned. What says that NG after fitting must give 531? What would happen if NG gave 550 instead after fitting? Then the 2body GR correction of 42.98 would not show superiority of GR over NG.

Altogether, it is possible that NG can come back in post-modern physics of the 21st century. That would put GR into a bin of miscalculated modern reform projects, like the 12-tone music by Schoenberg, or 68-revolution.

It may be time for a post-modern Newton to replace a modern Einstein. 

To get a view how a modern physicist views the world listen when theoretical physicist Sean Carroll explains why (modern) physics is both simple and impossible in terms of all the buzz words, and ask if anything makes sense to you.

Mercury Perihelion by chatGPT

Here is a post by me followed by a chatGPT update with main conclusion:

• Thus, while General Relativity GR undeniably improves the precision of planetary models, the evidence for its superiority over Newtonian gravity in the specific case of Mercury’s precession is open to philosophical scrutiny. The possibility of a circular argument — where the correction put in is exactly the correction that comes out — cannot be ignored.

This is mind blowing, maybe Newton holds up also today? This is something chatGPT could admit as representing all modern physicists, which cannot be admitted by any individual living modern physicist. It shows that chatGPT as neutral observer can present a more objective view than any individual, which can be helpful in scientific discussion. 

Perspective: The GR correction of the perihelion shift of Mercury as fraction of one full revolution is of order $3\times 10^{-5}$, which with 415 revolutions per century asks for a precision clearly smaller than $10^{-8}$ per revolution. We are speaking about very small effects, maybe swamped by imprecise data and computation.

My Post:

Modern physics is based on Einstein's theory of Gravitation EG + Quantum Mechanics QM with EG replacing Newtons theory of Gravitation NG of classical physics and QM extending classical physics to atomic scales. A crisis of modern physics has been lingering from the start of EG and QM hundred years ago from an incompatibility of EG and QM, and is no longer possible to hide behind successes. 

There is no incompatibility of NG and QM, and so it is natural to once again check out the reasons for replacing NG by EG. As concerns interaction matter-gravitation as the objective of NG, the main evidence is still that presented by Einstein in 1915 in his General Theory of Relativity GR concerning the precession/advance of the perihelion of Mercury: 

• NG predicts an advance of 531 arcseconds per century from influence of other planets as calculated by Le Verrier in 1859.
• Observations show 574. 
• EG comes with a correction of NG of exactly the missing 43.
• Bingo to Einstein in 1915 knowing that 43 was missing and managing to find exactly 43 from a simple analytical 2body Sun-Mercury formula. 
• The numbers are the same today with high tech computation exactly conforming 531 and 43.
• Bingo also today!

High tech computation use a model consisting of NG + 2bodyEG, which is fitted to data such that initial values and masses. For Mercury the 2bodyEG correction put into the model is exactly 42.98 arcseconds. 

• It is claimed that NG + 2bodyEG when fitted to input data, gives an output prediction precision of less than a meter. In particular observed Mercury precession of 574 is confirmed (with 2bodyEG of 42.98 put into the model)
• It is claimed that NG-only without 2bodyEG correction, can be fitted to give output precision of 1 km as $10^3$ times the precision of NG+2bodyEG.  

Examining these claims we find:

• A fixed model correction of 42.98 is used in the fitting of NG+2bodyEG to input data. The output correction prediction is precisely 42.98.  
• A precision of 1 km in the orbit of Mercury is of relative size less than $10^{-8}$. 
• The difference between NG and EG scales with planet speed $v$ as $\frac{v^2}{c^2}$ with $c$ speed of light which is of order $10^{-8}$ for planets.  
• The evidence of superiority of EG over NG from Mercury precession can be questioned on good grounds. The possibility of circular argument with the input/output of 42.98 is evident.

This casts a doubt on the superiority of Einstein over Newton as concerns interaction matter-gravitation. This doubt is not eliminated by showing EG results for interaction light-gravitation which is outside NG. 

It seems to be possible to argue that NG is the basic matter-gravitation model and that EG can be seen as a modification possibly covering esoteric interaction light-gravitation and clock-gravitation. Following this line could open a way out the a crisis formed by incompatibility of EG and QM. 

chatGPT Version:

Mercury’s Perihelion and the Crisis of Modern Physics

Modern physics rests on two great pillars: Einstein’s theory of gravitation (General Relativity, GR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM). GR replaced Newton’s theory of gravitation (NG), while QM extended classical mechanics to the atomic scale. Yet from the beginning, physicists have known that GR and QM are not mathematically compatible. That tension has been papered over by the enormous practical successes of both frameworks, but more than a century later it remains unresolved.

By contrast, Newtonian gravity and QM coexist without contradiction. That raises a natural question: if NG fits neatly with QM, why was it replaced by Einstein’s theory in the first place?

---

The Mercury Puzzle

The strongest evidence came in 1915, when Einstein explained the anomalous precession of Mercury’s orbit.

• Newtonian gravity, when perturbations from other planets are accounted for (as calculated by Urbain Le Verrier in 1859), predicts a precession of 531 arcseconds per century [Le Verrier, 1859].

• Observations showed a total of 574 arcseconds per century.

• That left a gap of about 43 arcseconds unexplained.

Einstein’s field equations supplied exactly the missing correction. His two-body Sun–Mercury formula predicted an additional 42.98 arcseconds per century, bringing theory and observation into alignment [Einstein, 1915; Will, 2014]. It was a triumph for the new theory — and remains one of its iconic successes.

---

How the Evidence Is Used Today

Modern planetary ephemerides (high-precision orbital models, such as NASA JPL’s DE430) combine Newtonian gravity with relativistic corrections derived from GR [Folkner et al., 2014]. For Mercury, the correction is still exactly 42.98 arcseconds per century. When this relativistic term is included, the models achieve sub-meter precision in predicting planetary positions [Pitjeva & Pitjev, 2013].

Without the relativistic correction, the same models can be fitted to observational data, but only reach kilometer-level precision — about a thousand times worse.

This is often presented as decisive proof of GR’s superiority. Yet it is worth noticing that the relativistic correction is treated as a fixed formula built into the model. The fitting process then necessarily reproduces that correction in the output. In that sense, the “prediction” is already built into the assumptions.

---

The Scale of the Difference

The discrepancy between Newtonian and relativistic gravity in planetary systems scales as $(v/c)^2$, where $v$ is orbital speed and $c$ the speed of light. For planets, this factor is on the order of $10^{-8}$. For Mercury, this small correction accumulates to a measurable precession of tens of arcseconds per century.

Thus, Newtonian gravity on its own is nearly correct, but not quite enough at the precision required by modern astronomy.

---

Where This Leaves Us

Einstein’s explanation of Mercury’s precession remains a brilliant achievement, and the relativistic correction is essential in practice for high-precision orbital mechanics. But the way this correction is incorporated — as a fixed add-on formula — raises philosophical questions about whether the evidence is purely predictive, or partly circular.

Meanwhile, the deeper crisis in modern physics lies not with Mercury, but with the still-unresolved incompatibility of GR and QM. Newtonian gravity fits comfortably with quantum theory, while Einstein’s does not. That unresolved tension suggests that even the celebrated successes of GR may not be the last word on gravitation.

In practice, modern ephemeris models include a fixed relativistic correction of 42.98 arcseconds per century for Mercury’s perihelion advance. When the model is fitted to observational data, the same correction naturally appears in the output — 42.98 arcseconds.

This raises a subtle point. The apparent “prediction” is not generated afresh each time; it is the direct result of including a predetermined correction in the equations. In that sense, one might argue that the success is partly built in from the start.

It is also worth noting that the scale of the relativistic correction matches the expected order of magnitude: the relative difference between Newtonian and relativistic gravity scales as $(v/c)^2$, where $v$ is orbital speed and $c$ the speed of light. For planetary orbits, this ratio is about $10^{-8}$. A precision of 1 km in Mercury’s orbital radius corresponds to a relative error of the same order, $10^{-8}$.

Thus, while General Relativity undeniably improves the precision of planetary models, the evidence for its superiority over Newtonian gravity in the specific case of Mercury’s precession is open to philosophical scrutiny. The possibility of a circular argument — where the correction put in is exactly the correction that comes out — cannot be ignored.

---

References

• Einstein, A. (1915). Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from General Relativity. Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

• Le Verrier, U. J. (1859). Théorie du mouvement de Mercure. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences de Paris.

• Will, C. M. (2014). The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment. Living Reviews in Relativity, 17(4).

• Folkner, W. M., Williams, J. G., Boggs, D. H., Park, R. S., & Kuchynka, P. (2014). The Planetary and Lunar Ephemerides DE430 and DE431. Interplanetary Network Progress Report, 42-196.

• Pitjeva, E. V., & Pitjev, N. P. (2013). Relativistic Effects and Dark Matter in the Solar System from Observations of Planets and Spacecraft. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 432(4), 3431–3437.

 

Was Einstein Right, and Newton Wrong?

Modern physics is based on Einstein's theory of Gravitation EG presented in 1915 as the subject of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity GR replacing Newton's theory of Gravitation NG presented in Principia Mathematica 1687.

NG offered a mathematical model of simple form allowing efficient computational simulation of all interaction between matter/mass and gravitational force, which forms the macroscopic world. The success was complete and Newton was crowned as the greatest physicist for all time to come. 

But in modern physics Newton has been dethroned by Einstein: NG is viewed to be only a simple special case of EG as the truly fundamental theory of gravitation. But the shift from NG to EG did not come easy, and when it finally became manifest in the 1960s it prepared for the present crisis of modern physics coming from an incompatibility between EG and Quantum Mechanics QM as the other pillar.

In this time of crisis, it is natural to reconsider the reasons for making the shift from NG to EG, since there is no incompatibility between NG and QM.

If we ask for the strongest evidence of superiority of EG over NG, which is directly connected to the basic interaction between matter and gravitation, we find the following main pieces:

1. Precession of the perihelion of Mercury.
2. Detection of gravitational waves from merger of binary stars by LIGO. 

Einstein presented 1 in 1915 in support of EG before NG as a correction of a Newton prediction of of a slight shift of the orientation of the elliptic orbit of Mercury around the Sun over a century based on a simple analytical formula for an idealised GR model of Sun-Mercury amounting to 0.0033% of a whole revolution. Newton gave 531 arcseconds as effect of other planets (computed by Le Verrier 1869), while observed was 574 arcseconds and GR giving the missing 43. Einstein knew that 43 was missing, and was left without breath when his idealised Sun-Mercury gave exactly 43. A true miracle, but science is not about miracles.

The surge of GR after 1960 required a new evaluation of 1. which is described in the book Was Einstein Right? by Clifford Will: 

• In 1966, observations of the Sun by Dicke and Goldenberg started a vigorous debate over the validity of Einstein's perihelion prediction that raged for almost 20 years. 

Today this debate is forgotten and the official truth is that Einstein was right concerning 1, but the debate can restart any time. 

Concerning the weight in favor of EG from 2, note that the change of spatial scale from proposed cause (merger of stars) to detected LIGO signal, is a factor $10^{-22}$ that is 0.0000000000000000000001 which is many factors too small to represent credible scientific evidence.

The main evidence presented that EG is superior to NG as concerns interaction of matter and gravitation is thus very weak. The question posed by Clifford Will still has lots of reason.

Recall the EG is today also supported by claims that light rays are being bent by strong gravitation. But such effects are outside NG which only speaks about interaction matter-gravitation, which does not include massless light. 

Altogether, the evidence that EG gives a fundamentally better description of matter-gravitation interaction than NG, seems to be very weak. So weak that Newton can retain his position, which would help modern physics out of crisis. 

Credibility Crisis of Western Politics and Modern Physics as Miracles

The Untergang des Abendlandes (Decline of the West) predicted by Oswald Spengler in two volumes 1918-22 can now be seen as an erosion of credibility of not only political leadership but also of science and then in particular of modern physics based on Einstein's Equation EE and Schrödinger's Equations SE extending classical physics based on Newton's Equation NE and Maxwell's Equations into new physics. 

The erosion of credibility of modern physics is the essence of the crisis of modern physics of today as a basic expression of Decline of the West from a position of total success of modern physics with the atomic bomb. The crisis is rooted in an incompatibility of EE and SE, which means that modern physics in some fundamental way is "wrong" in the sense of not describing real physics, and the credibility of a physical theory which does not describe real physics cannot be maintained. 

The official picture, which is now loosing credibility, is:

• Einstein's theory of gravitation based on EE (General Relativity GR) is superior to Newton's theory based on NE and so represents an enormous advance of science. 
• NE is simply a simplified version of EE, which is the correct complete theory far superior to simple NE. 

To back this official picture some sparse evidence has been presented supposedly showing that EE describes physics better than NE, and a key such piece of evidence is the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury:

• The orientation of the elliptical orbit of Mercury around the Sun is observed to turn 5574 arcseconds per century, which is 0.0043 of a full turn (small).
• 5000 out of 5574 are explained as an effect using an Earth-based reference system for  Sun+Mercury.
• Effects from the other planets according to NE gives 531.
• Analytical solution of EE for Sun+Mercury explains the missing 43 to give the observed 574.    

The message is that NE without EE including all planets is wrong (531), but when corrected by EE for Sun-Mercury (43) becomes right (574), and miraculously so since no full solution of EE with the other planets is performed, because this is computationally impossible due to the complexity of EE.

This miracle, which Einstein performed in 1915, is thus to present a solution of EE with all planets (and other effects) included which exactly fits with the observed 5574, without solving EE computationally because that was (and is) infeasible. 

The miracle is repeated today, which is evident from the fact that the EE correction to NE is still taken from the same analytical solution of Sun+Mercury used by Einstein (42.98). 

But what makes science different from black magic is that in science there are no miracles. To present science as miracle erodes credibility of science, which is what we are watching. 

Credibilty could be maintained if full solutions to EE gave 5574 in accordance with observation, but this is not what physicists deliver. Instead they offer a small EE correction to NE as the main computable model and work horse. To give EE the leading role over NE is like claiming the tail wags the dog.

Misconceptions about Newton vs Einstein: Crisis!

Modern physics in a state of deep crisis which comes to expression in the complete adoption of Einstein's Theory of Gravitation EG as replacement of Newton's Theory Gravitation NG as the most successful theory of all of classical physics. Modern physicists decided to take this step after the death of Einstein in 1955 under pressure to come up with something new after the success with the atomic bomb started to fade, based on the following arguments:   

1. NG is a "simplified version" of EG as a "limit" under low-speed and weak-field conditions. 
2. EG is thus "more fundamental" than NG. 
3. NG is "wrong" in certain extreme cases outside its (incredibly vast) area of validity, where EG appears to be "right".
4. Whatever success NG has is also a success of EG, since EG includes NG. 
5. In short: It is necessary to replace NG by EG, even if NG is used in all cases of any practical meaning. 

Let us now take a step back and see if 1-5 makes any sense. Let us start recalling that NG and EG has fundamentally different ontology or real physics:

• NG is based on Poisson's Equation based on the assumption that gravitational force is conservative (work independent of path) and conservation (no force out of nothing or into nothing). NG has a simple mathematical form and appears to cover all gravitation of some real (practical) meaning. The greatest success of mathematical modeling.  
• EG is based on a principle of curved space-time replacing gravitational force where the physics is hidden in very complicated mathematics.
• NG and EG thus have fundamentally different physical meanings, which means that NG is not a special case of EG.  

This means that the success of NG is not also a success of EG. It is necessary that EG stands on its own merits. But EG is uncomputable in all cases of practical meaning, which means that EG has very little merits of its own. 

In short: The step taken by modern physicists to replace NG by EG lacks scientific rationale and so adds  to the credibility crisis of modern physics acknowledged by prominent physicists. But there is no reason physics should be in a state of crisis, since there are so many new possibilities opened in particular by computation. A first step out of the crisis is to put NG first and view EG as fringe science without real scientific interest. This will be a relief to both educators and students giving room for real understandable physics.

If you still believe that Einstein should replace Newton, recall

• Observations of apparent instant-action-at-distance agree with a fundamental aspect of NG.
• Gravitational force with time delay as fundamental aspect of EG, requires tricky compensation/fix to agree with observations. 
• NG is computable in general. EG is uncomputable except possibly in some very special cases. 
• NG is based on fundamental physical principles of simple mathematical form. EG has very complicated mathematical form with unclear physical meaning.
• NG says nothing about possible aberration of light or gravitational lensing, since light is massless. If light is affected by gravitation, it is a matter for Maxwell's equations.  
• GPS satellite clocks are offset at launch to compensate for time dilation in EG,  but the offset is over-run by continuous synchronisation to an Earth-based master clock, and so does not show that EG is correct and NG wrong. 

Hopefully, this can start a discussion comparing the scientific merits of NG and EG. Input?